I was considering having the initial distribution of the new coin be such that everyone has the same as the amount of already-moved CLAM they had at that block. Coins which hadn't moved since the initial CLAM distribution wouldn't feature in the new coin's blockchain.
And so "the digger" would only have the 38% of his 500k that he moved already, and the next generation of large diggers would have nothing.
The idea being that since some people want digging to stop and others want it left alone, we need a 2nd coin in which digging has stopped.
For those who want digging left as it started, there's CLAM. For people who want it stopped, there's the other coin.
Again, it's just an idea someone brought up. So far I've heard nothing against it other than that "it's a bad idea". But is it? And if so, why so?
I like this idea. Then the current rules of CLAM don't change and everyone can change who wants to use the new coin. But the exchange rate of CLAM might drop, because people would assume that some people might cash out to BTC for easy money doubling.
If we vote based on how many CLAMs we hold, would be nice if investors at JD could vote, too.
What about who buy clam in the future they will not get the "new coin". Most people wont buy anything if not what will happen